"Gospel Quest" (or The Jesus Timeline)

[DeistPaladin]

At this point they are only apparent discrepancies. Any so-called "discrepancy" you find has a Bible scholar's explanation why it is not a discrepancy, but merely a misunderstanding of culture/literature/person ect. The difference between you and I is I believe the scholars. And more importantly, I believe the evidence (scriptural context, historical context, archaeology, ect) that the scholars cite.

Seriously?

Have you bothered to read any part of the first four pages of this thread before you started posting?

I have painstakingly reviewed the timelines proposed by all four Gospels and shown them to be incompatible with each other. I have reviewed the historical landmarks against which the mythology is set. I have reviewed the apologetic ad hoc dismissals of and excuses for all the "apparent" discrepancies. I have done all this for you and your ilk who blithely and flippantly declare your bare assertion that there are no contradictions in the Gospels.

...and then you just brush past it all as if it's not even there and hit the "reset" button.

Do you have any idea how much that hurts my feelings?

How would you feel if you spent hours and hours of painstaking research and sifting through the second most boring, badly-written book in the world (the first being the Koran) only to have it be brushed aside like it's not even there.



That's time in my life that I'm not getting back. That's time I could have spent playing Skyrim or composing music. But no, I spent that time for you. Because you seemed to really need to see the facts. Because apparently no one had ever put it together for you before.

The least you can do is address any of the "apparent contradictions" I've highlighted for you. Maybe even present some of that evidence that discredits my research instead of a hand-waving appeal-to-authority "all the Bible scholars have addressed all this" and then walk away. You don't have to agree. You just have to acknowledge what I've done. All for you.

Your welcome.

[Simon Moon]

Are you saying that their belief precedes looking at the evidence?

Of course their belief precedes looking at the evidence. And on a side note, the Bible is not evidence, the Bible is the claim.

Imagine an alien coming to earth to study ancient texts. He has no knowledge of our religions, no beliefs about them one way or the other.

Besides the texts themselves, their sources, the people that wrote them, the previous myths they borrowed from, various translations, etc, etc, what would you expect this alien to find? That they actually tell of real supernatural events? Please...

Where did you get an idea like that?

From reality.

Is it possible to just up and believe something without knowing anything about it?

No. One must be informed of the premise, and the reasons to believe it before they will believe it.

Belief is the psychological state in which one accepts that a premise of proposition is true.

Where do you get the idea that blind faith is possible?

What do you mean by 'blind faith'? There seems to be many definitions for this phrase.

There was some evidence that first caused the believing scholar to believe, and that particular examining was not dependent on religion.

If so, then their level of what qualifies as evidence is pretty low.

William Lane Craig, for example, has said that 'the witness of the Holy Spirit' is all he needs. Which means he is basing his beliefs on a feeling, not good evidence.

[Undeceived]

There was some evidence that first caused the believing scholar to believe, and that particular examining was not dependent on religion.

If so, then their level of what qualifies as evidence is pretty low.

William Lane Craig, for example, has said that 'the witness of the Holy Spirit' is all he needs. Which means he is basing his beliefs on a feeling, not good evidence.

If a student is to learn anything, at some point he needs to stop critiquing his teacher and start listening. What sample size should he take before finally giving himself over to instruction? This crossing-of-the-line is a type of faith. And all the while, the Holy Spirit is communicating with our spirit. We are spiritual beings. We can't do anything without our spirit agreeing. A "feeling" is often a symptom of your spirit. Likewise, we can't do anything unless our feelings agree. In fact, our feelings are the only reason we do anything. If you no longer felt like living, you wouldn't. Think about that. You would never watch TV unless you liked the way it entertained you. You would never get a job unless you thought the money would make you happy. Your quest in life is to be happy, and that is a feeling. So when you talk about basing beliefs on feelings, I think about the deepest longings of my soul--what satisfies and fulfills me, what makes life worth living. God makes like worth living. My spirit, which spills out as "feelings" tell me this is so. It is not wishful thinking. It is my spirit, the immaterial integral part of every person. This is hard to explain. All I can say is, once you realize you have one, you are a believer. That's why it is so obvious to Christians that God is alive and working. He lives in us, we can't miss him. If you suddenly woke up with an extra limb made out of light that only you could see, you couldn't miss it. If you want this, if you really want this, you can ask, seek and knock. Drich has a nice recent thread on the topic.

Luke 11:9-13

“So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
“Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

---

At this point they are only apparent discrepancies. Any so-called "discrepancy" you find has a Bible scholar's explanation why it is not a discrepancy, but merely a misunderstanding of culture/literature/person ect. The difference between you and I is I believe the scholars. And more importantly, I believe the evidence (scriptural context, historical context, archaeology, ect) that the scholars cite.

Seriously?

Have you bothered to read any part of the first four pages of this thread before you started posting?

I have painstakingly reviewed the timelines proposed by all four Gospels and shown them to be incompatible with each other. I have reviewed the historical landmarks against which the mythology is set. I have reviewed the apologetic ad hoc dismissals of and excuses for all the "apparent" discrepancies. I have done all this for you and your ilk who blithely and flippantly declare your bare assertion that there are no contradictions in the Gospels.

I am sorry. Next time, I will address the thread-starter first. You clearly took the time to research and feel strongly about your findings. But for those reading who are open to it, I have a couple scholars' takes:

http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/onlin...o-to-mark/
http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/onlin...o-matthew/
http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/onlin...ro-to-luke
http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/onlin...o-to-john/

Give me time to respond to the rest.

---

So Matt's Jesus was born before 4 BCE. But what about the census in Luke? Apologists like to suggest an earlier census of 9-8 BCE but this would have made Jesus way too old to be "about 30" by the time JtB even started his ministry in 28-29 CE. Additionally, all of Judea was not part of Rome but a client state run by Herod the Great. The citizens of Judea were NOT Roman citizens at that point in history. The entire point of the census under Quirinius and Luke's reference to taxation was because Rome had just acquired new provinces and wanted to know how much tax revenue there was to be gained.

I've read to this point. Two things. Matthew does place Jesus' birth pretty firmly before 4 BC, just before Herod dies. So scholars are left to explain Luke. Here's two:
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/200...ensus.aspx
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/2...2_JETS.pdf
The second addresses Herod on p.51. Remember that in Luke 2:2, Luke takes care to note, "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria." It is quite possible that most Jews remembered the second census in 6CE, so he felt the need to clarify. Also, this date allows for the all-so-interesting celestial dance between 3-2 BC, which may have been what the Magi saw:
http://www.bethlehemstar.net/setting-the...ists-star/

[Undeceived]

John's Jesus first makes his appearance at his baptism but John still hints that Jesus is almost 50.

8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

I've never heard this one before. But upon researching, apparently 50 years is "the completion of manhood" for a Jew. Isn't this just saying that Jesus is still in his prime?

"Count all the men from thirty to fifty years of age who come to serve in the work at the tent of meeting."

---

According to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus, after his baptism, immediately went into the Wilderness for 40 days.

1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

...but John's Gospel tells us that Jesus spent the next two days gathering disciples and the third day going to a wedding.

Mark uses the words "immediately" and "at once" 42 times in his gospel (Greek eutheōs and euthus). I could post plenty of articles about why he probably does this--they are readily available. Do you believe all 42 are to be taken literally, that absolutely nothing happened in the meantime? Read Biblical scholars' commentaries. They are experts in ancient Jewish and Greek linguistics, unlike us. Interpreters get into trouble when they try to to force 21st-century American/British meanings onto words written years and cultures apart.

[Esquilax]

If a student is to learn anything, at some point he needs to stop critiquing his teacher and start listening. What sample size should he take before finally giving himself over to instruction? This crossing-of-the-line is a type of faith. And all the while, the Holy Spirit is communicating with our spirit. We are spiritual beings. We can't do anything without our spirit agreeing. A "feeling" is often a symptom of your spirit. Likewise, we can't do anything unless our feelings agree. In fact, our feelings are the only reason we do anything. If you no longer felt like living, you wouldn't. Think about that. You would never watch TV unless you liked the way it entertained you. You would never get a job unless you thought the money would make you happy. Your quest in life is to be happy, and that is a feeling. So when you talk about basing beliefs on feelings, I think about the deepest longings of my soul--what satisfies and fulfills me, what makes life worth living. God makes like worth living. My spirit, which spills out as "feelings" tell me this is so. It is not wishful thinking. It is my spirit, the immaterial integral part of every person. This is hard to explain. All I can say is, once you realize you have one, you are a believer. That's why it is so obvious to Christians that God is alive and working. He lives in us, we can't miss him. If you suddenly woke up with an extra limb made out of light that only you could see, you couldn't miss it. If you want this, if you really want this, you can ask, seek and knock. Drich has a nice recent thread on the topic.

Are you kidding me? You're saying feelings are verification of god, and to justify this your examples were exclusively opinions and preferences. But god isn't a preference, and your opinion on whether or not he exists means nothing. God, if he exists, is an objective phenomena, not something your feelings can confirm. Psychology is rife with the study of cognitive biases and fallacies, to begin with, and if you really want to handwave all this by talking about feelings, then you have to allow for the fact that every other religion on the planet has followers who just feel that their god exists. Aside from special pleading, what do you have to confirm the existence of your god and discount theirs?

Not that it matters, since feelings aren't a reliable source of information to begin with, and attempting to attach them- without evidence or anything- to a soul you haven't bothered to prove doesn't help you. You do understand that we identify people with mental illnesses partially on the basis that what they feel exists does not match up to external reality, don't you?

[Minimalist]

If a student is to learn anything, at some point he needs to stop critiquing his teacher and start listening.

Not when the teacher is quoting from a book of ancient bullshit.

[Brakeman]

According to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus, after his baptism, immediately went into the Wilderness for 40 days.


...but John's Gospel tells us that Jesus spent the next two days gathering disciples and the third day going to a wedding.

Mark uses the words "immediately" and "at once" 42 times in his gospel (Greek eutheōs and euthus). I could post plenty of articles about why he probably does this--they are readily available. Do you believe all 42 are to be taken literally, that absolutely nothing happened in the meantime? Read Biblical scholars' commentaries. .

So either the translation of "immediately" is completely wrong, or the writer used poor word choice, and as this is supposedly inspired, that makes a god mistake.. Even god knows to write for his audience's comprehension.

Of course the theists want us to take other theistic bible scholar's word for it as it's not like their job or belief system would bias their opinion in any way..

[DeistPaladin]

Minimalist, are you saying that the majority of Bible scholars are wrong about the Bible? How is that different from saying astrophysicists don't know anything about stars?
I don't mean to make an argument from authority here, but neither should we resort to ad hominem.

Brakeman inspired me to respond to this post. When I first read it, I had disregarded it as the usual attempt to compare theology to science. I've grown a bit tired of pointing out how fields of science like astrophysics are studies of objective realities that are measurable and the tests/evidence can be conducted/discovered independently by another scientist in that field.

By "objective reality", I mean measurements of mass, kinetic energy, temperature, velocity, distance etc. can be measured in quantifiable ways. Personal opinions do not enter into it. These discoveries can be duplicated by anyone else willing to devote the time. These discoveries can also be duplicated by anyone ignorant of the work of others.

Theology, by contrast, is at best philosophy (and I'm being charitable here). Interpretations of soft fields of study like music, art, literature or philosophy are dependent on subjective observations. One person's read of Shakespeare may vary from another's. Two different art critics may arrive at two different conclusions.

Even history, which is the study of certain objective realities and whether or not they happened in the past, is still subject to a lot of guesswork. Historian scholars themselves will tell you that, when delving into ancient history, like 2,000 years ago, there is much division and the consensus is based on what "likely" happened or didn't. The standard of evidence is much lower than what might exist in a science lab because the evidence itself is sketchy, based on biased testimony and often the lack of contrary testimony (since the winners often write history and the loser's writings may not be maintained or destroyed).

The evidence becomes even more murky in the study of history of religion. Even Bart Ehrman, a proponent of the historicity of Jesus, has written extensively about the problems of interpolation and pseudo-epigraphy in sacred scriptures. Testimonies come from superstitious people and even these are re-written and forged to meet the needs of later religious leaders.

All this doesn't even touch upon the contempt I have for theology in comparison to philosophy, history or art. With theology, you are interpreting mythology as if there was anything to know. It's like the study of voodoo or witchcraft. It's studying superstitious nonsense as if there was anything to be discovered. It has about as much seriousness as two Star Wars fans debating the "true teachings" of the Jedi.

But then you also have Brakeman's point that in science, there is the attempt to remove human bias in research. This is enforced by a demanding system of peer review where your peers get prestige by ripping apart what you've asserted. The system checks itself and ferrets out faulty or poorly supported assertions.

Theology, by contrast, my allow for some variation in interpretations but can't allow for any questioning of the truth of its dogmas. You may argue what the Bible is really saying but you can't question whether the Bible has any merit as a source of revelation.

You've committed the fallacy of a false comparison.

[Minimalist]

Yes...

The truth is that Christian theology, like every other theology, is not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is also opposed to all other attempts at rational thinking. Not by accident does Genesis 3 make the father of knowledge a serpent — slimy, sneaking and abominable. Since the earliest days the church, as an organization, has thrown itself violently against every effort to liberate the body and mind of man. It has been, at all times and everywhere, the habitual and incorrigible defender of bad governments, bad laws, bad social theories, bad institutions. It was, for centuries, an apologist for slavery, as it was the apologist for the divine right of kings.
— H L Mencken

[DeistPaladin]

I've never heard this one before. But upon researching, apparently 50 years is "the completion of manhood" for a Jew. Isn't this just saying that Jesus is still in his prime?

Perhaps, if not for the theologians following John that thought Jesus was 50 when he was crucified.

Mark uses the words "immediately" and "at once" 42 times in his gospel (Greek eutheōs and euthus). I could post plenty of articles about why he probably does this--they are readily available. Do you believe all 42 are to be taken literally, that absolutely nothing happened in the meantime?

As Brakeman has pointed out, translation errors are still errors. But putting that aside...

All three Synoptics agree that Jesus immediately went into the wilderness for 40 days and returned when JtB was out of the way and in prison. It was only AFTER this point, the return from the wilderness, that Jesus began his ministry and gathered disciples.

John's Jesus not only started gathering disciples right away but opened a rival baptism ministry while JtB was still practicing (and beat JtB at his own game). There is no mention in John that Jesus left his ministry and his disciples to dwell in the wilderness. Further, this entire narrative of Jesus in the wilderness being tempted by the devil makes no theological sense for John's Jesus who is one with his Father Yahweh, which is likely why John omitted and rewrote this point.

The Synoptic Jesus was clearly separate from and subordinate to his Father. Jesus didn't have as much knowledge ("no man knows the day... not even the Son, but the Father only") and has a subordinate will ("Let this cup be passed from me but no my will but thy will be done"). The Synoptic Jesus speaks to his Father in 2nd person and of him in 3rd. Likewise, the booming voice from the sky speaks to Jesus in 2nd person and of him in 3rd.

John's Jesus was still fuzzy on the identity issue but it was here that we start to see a Trinitarian Jesus, one who said "I and my father are one". Were you to read the Synoptics in isolation, you would not have any idea that Jesus was anything more than a holy man or a demigod offspring of Yahweh.

This is why the Synoptic Jesus has his 40 days of temptation (how could God be tempted with kingdoms of the earth) but John's Jesus does not. This is why the Synoptic Jesus waits for JtB to get out of the way but John's Jesus does not. This is why the Synoptic Jesus has his ministry around Galilee and eventually works his way to Jerusalem but John's Jesus kicks off his ministry in Jerusalem with the "cleansing of the Temple".

Two different stories about two different Jesuses (Jesusi?) because one was written much later when "the Jews" were a separate (and rival) sect and Christianity had evolved their savoir to being one with Yahweh.

---

I've read to this point. Two things. Matthew does place Jesus' birth pretty firmly before 4 BC, just before Herod dies. So scholars are left to explain Luke.

Yes, theologians are stuck with Herod the Great and have to move Luke's Jesus to accommodate, a pity since Luke gives us the most historical landmarks and is the easiest to reconcile with itself.

One is the "two governorships" of Quirinius, which was never allowed since it would give a governor too much power over one province and risk secession. Additionally, we know where Qurinius was and it wasn't in Syria being governor.

So some apologists drop involving Quirinius and try to interpret that Luke meant to say "before" and not "when" or "during". This brings us back to "translation errors are still errors". But again let that go.

The previous census was in 9 BCE (perhaps as late as 8 BCE). Judea was not a province of Rome at that time. The census of Quirinius was because Rome had acquired a new province and wanted to asses its taxation potential. Furthermore, a JC birth in 8 BCE would have made Jesus too old to be "about 30" when John the Baptist even started his ministry, let alone when he was put in prison.

Multi-fail.

Also, this date allows for the all-so-interesting celestial dance between 3-2 BC, which may have been what the Magi saw:
http://www.bethlehemstar.net/setting-the...ists-star/

3-2 BCE would have been later than 4 BCE. Herod died in 4 BCE and so he couldn't have been talking with the wise men two years later.